Improving market success of animal welfare programs through key stakeholder involvement: heading towards responsible innovation?
In: International Food and Agribusiness Management ReviewSearch for other papers by Nina Purwins in
Current site
Google Scholar
Senior Lecturer, Lincoln University, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Lincoln 7647, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Search for other papers by Birgit Schulze-Ehlers in
Current site
Google Scholar
Despite frequent public criticism of modern husbandry practices, many animal welfare programs lack acceptance among both farmers and consumers. We contend that this lock-in originates from a lack of market orientation and consequential neglect of key stakeholders’ preferences in program design. Considering the case of a retailer-owned meat brand, we demonstrate the relevance of stakeholders’ inclusion when establishing animal welfare programs for pigs. Surveys among 62 farming members of a pig trading cooperative and 692 supermarket customers reveal the heterogeneity of beliefs and acceptance within both groups. While a Responsible Innovation approach, including key actors from the initial criteria selection, could be effective for raising acceptance, it would likely lead to lengthy time-to-market, prohibiting first-mover advantages. We suggest instead that beliefs and acceptance among farmers may be influenced through a communication strategy based on survey results and experimental research, as well as facilitating positive word-of-mouth.
-
Ajzen, I. 1991. Theories of cognitive self-regulation. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179-211.
'Theories of cognitive self-regulation. The theory of planned behavior ' () 50 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes : 179 -211.
-
Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein 2005. The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: The handbook of attitudes, edited by D. Albarracín, B.T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp. 173-221.
'The influence of attitudes on behavior ', in The handbook of attitudes , () 173 -221.
-
Blok, V. and P. Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In:Responsible innovation 2: concepts, approaches, and applications, edited by B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra en J. van den Hoven. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 19-35.
'The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation ', in Responsible innovation 2: concepts, approaches, and applications , () 19 -35.
-
Blokhuis, H.J., R.B. Jones, R. Geers, M. Miele and I. Veissier. 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445-56.
'Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain ' () 12 Animal Welfare : 445 -56.
-
Bock, B.B. and M.M. van Huik. 2007a. Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109(11): 931-944.
'Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers ' () 109 British Food Journal : 931 -944.
-
Bock, B.B. and M.M. van Huik. 2007b. Pig farmers and animal welfare: a study of beliefs, attitudes and behavior of pig producers across Europe. In: Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. welfare quality reports no. 2, edited by U. Kjœrners and M. Miele. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, pp. 73-124.
'Pig farmers and animal welfare: a study of beliefs, attitudes and behavior of pig producers across Europe ', in Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. welfare quality reports no. 2 , () 73 -124.
-
Böhm, J., M. Kayser and A. Spiller 2010. Two sides of the same coin? Analysis of the web-based social media with regard to the image of the agri-food sector in Germany. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 1(3): 264-278.
'Two sides of the same coin? Analysis of the web-based social media with regard to the image of the agri-food sector in Germany ' () 1 International Journal on Food System Dynamics : 264 -278.
-
Bruijnis, M.R.N., V. Blok, E.N. Stassen and H.G.J. Gremmen. 2015. Moral ‘lock-in’ in responsible innovation: the ethical and social aspects of killing day-old chicks and its alternatives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28(5): 939-960.
'Moral ‘lock-in’ in responsible innovation: the ethical and social aspects of killing day-old chicks and its alternatives ' () 28 Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics : 939 -960.
-
Bruijnis, M., H. Hogeveen, C. Garforth and E. Stassen. 2013. Dairy farmers’ attitudes and intentions towards improving dairy cow foot health. Livestock Science 155(1): 103-113.
'Dairy farmers’ attitudes and intentions towards improving dairy cow foot health ' () 155 Livestock Science : 103 -113.
-
Cechin, A., J. Bijman, S. Pascucci and O. Omta. 2013. Decomposing the member relationship in agricultural cooperatives: implications for commitment. Agribusiness 29(1): 39-61.
'Decomposing the member relationship in agricultural cooperatives: implications for commitment ' () 29 Agribusiness : 39 -61.
-
Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA.
'Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology', ().
-
Deimel, I., A. Franz and A. Spiller. 2012. Animal welfare: an empirical analysis of agricultural frames. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(2): 114-26.
'Animal welfare: an empirical analysis of agricultural frames ' () 61 German Journal of Agricultural Economics : 114 -26.
-
dlz. 2013. Mästen für das Tierschutzlabel. dlz agrarmagazin. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/y8bm8f3k.
-
Dwane, A.M., S.J. More, M. Blake, K. McKenzie and A.J. Hanlon. 2013. Farmers’ self-reported perceptions and behavioural impacts of a welfare scheme for suckler beef cattle in Ireland. Irish Veterinary Journal 66(1): 1-11.
'Farmers’ self-reported perceptions and behavioural impacts of a welfare scheme for suckler beef cattle in Ireland ' () 66 Irish Veterinary Journal : 1 -11.
-
Escobar, M.H. and Buller. 2014. Projecting social science into Defra’s animal welfare evidence base: a review of current research and evidence base on the issue of farmer behaviour: a report to the Department for Environment. Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, London, UK.
'Projecting social science into Defra’s animal welfare evidence base: a review of current research and evidence base on the issue of farmer behaviour: a report to the Department for Environment', ().
-
EUR-Lex. 2017a. Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) D. Protocols annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community. Protocol (No 33) on protection and welfare of animals (1997). Available at: http://tinyurl.com/ychf2s85.
-
EUR-Lex 2017b. Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/y74k9o6h.
-
European Commission. 2016. Special Eurobarometer 442. Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare 2016. European Commission. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/y8dnmj9p.
-
Eurostat. 2012. Eurostat statistics explained. Agricultural census in Germany. European Commission. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/ycgphv7r.
-
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) 2017a. Nutztierhaltungsstrategie. Zukunftsfähige Tierhaltung in Deutschland. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/y978xw6p.
-
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) 2017b. Schritte zu mehr Tierwohl. Availble at: http://tinyurl.com/y95b8f5z.
-
Franz, A., I. Deimel and A. Spiller. 2012. Concerns about animal welfare: a cluster analysis of German pig farmers. British Food Journal 114(10): 1445-1462.
'Concerns about animal welfare: a cluster analysis of German pig farmers ' () 114 British Food Journal : 1445 -1462.
-
Gocsik, E., I.A. van der Lans, A.G.J.M. Oude Lansink and H.W. Saatkamp. 2016. Elicitation of preferences of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to support decision making on animal welfare. Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 76: 75-86.
'Elicitation of preferences of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to support decision making on animal welfare ' () 76 Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences : 75 -86.
-
Hansson, H. and C.J. Lagerkvist. 2014. Defining and measuring farmers’ attitudes to farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 23(1): 47-56.
'Defining and measuring farmers’ attitudes to farm animal welfare ' () 23 Animal Welfare : 47 -56.
-
Hansson, H. and C.J. Lagerkvist. 2015. Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture. Food Policy 50: 35-42.
'Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture ' () 50 Food Policy : 35 -42.
-
Heise, H., W. Pirsich and L. Theuvsen. 2014. Improved process quality through certification systems: an assessment of selected animal welfare labels. Proceedings in Food System Dynamics 5: 1-11.
'Improved process quality through certification systems: an assessment of selected animal welfare labels ' () 5 Proceedings in Food System Dynamics : 1 -11.
-
Hubbard, C., M. Bourlakis and G. Garrod. 2007. Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal 109(11): 919-930.
'Pig in the middle: farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards ' () 109 British Food Journal : 919 -930.
-
Johnsen, P.F., T. Johannesson and P. Sandøe. 2001. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science 51(sup030): 26-33.
'Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd level: many goals, many methods ' () 51 Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science : 26 -33.
-
Kauppinen, T., K.M. Vesala and A. Valros. 2012. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science 143(2-3): 142-150.
'Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters ' () 143 Livestock Science : 142 -150.
-
Kirchner, M.K., H.S. Westerath-Niklaus, U. Knierim, E. Tessitore, G. Cozzi, C. Vogl and C. Winckler. 2014. Attitudes and expectations of beef farmers in Austria, Germany and Italy towards the Welfare Quality® assessment system. Livestock Science 160: 102-112.
'Attitudes and expectations of beef farmers in Austria, Germany and Italy towards the Welfare Quality® assessment system ' () 160 Livestock Science : 102 -112.
-
Kjœrners, U. and R. Lavik. 2007. Part I farm animal welfare and food consumption practices: results from survey in seven countries. In: Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. welfare quality reports no. 2, edited by U. Kjœrners and M. Miele. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, pp. 1-30.
'Part I farm animal welfare and food consumption practices: results from survey in seven countries ', in Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. welfare quality reports no. 2 , () 1 -30.
-
Kohli, A.K. and B.J. Jaworski. 1990. Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing 54: 1-18.
'Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and managerial implications ' () 54 Journal of Marketing : 1 -18.
-
Lagerkvist, C.J. and S. Hess. 2011. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38(1): 55-78.
'A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare ' () 38 European Review of Agricultural Economics : 55 -78.
-
Liao, S.-H., W.-J. Chang, C.-C. Wu and J.M. Katrichis. 2011. A survey of market orientation research (1995-2008). Industrial Marketing Management 40(2): 301-310.
'A survey of market orientation research (1995-2008) ' () 40 Industrial Marketing Management : 301 -310.
-
Liljenstolpe, C. 2008. Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 24(1): 67-84.
'Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production ' () 24 Agribusiness : 67 -84.
-
Mentzer, J.T., W. DeWitt, J.S. Keebler, S. Min, N.W. Nix, C.D Smith and Z.G. Zacharia. 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics 22: 1-25.
'Defining supply chain management ' () 22 Journal of Business Logistics : 1 -25.
-
Moynagh, J. 2000. EU Regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare. The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics 3(2&3): 107-114.
'EU Regulation and consumer demand for animal welfare ' () 3 The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics : 107 -114.
-
Peattie, K. 2001. Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing. The Marketing Review 2(2): 129-146.
'Towards sustainability: the third age of green marketing ' () 2 The Marketing Review : 129 -146.
-
Roe, E. and T. Marsden. 2007. Analysis of the retail survey of products that carry welfare-claims and of non-retailer led assurance schemes whose logos accompany welfare-claims. In: Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. Welfare Quality Reports No. 2, edited by U. Kjœrners and M. Miele. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, pp. 33-69.
'Analysis of the retail survey of products that carry welfare-claims and of non-retailer led assurance schemes whose logos accompany welfare-claims ', in Attitudes of consumers, retailers and producers to farm animal welfare. Welfare Quality Reports No. 2 , () 33 -69.
-
Rogers, E.M. 2003. The diffusion of innovations. 5th edition. Free Press, New York, NY, USA.
'The diffusion of innovations. 5th edition ', in The diffusion of innovations. , ().
-
Rutström, E.E. 1998. Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design. International Journal of Game Theory 27(3): 427-441.
'Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design ' () 27 International Journal of Game Theory : 427 -441.
-
Schulze, B. and I. Deimel. 2012. Conflicts between agriculture and society: the role of lobby groups in the animal welfare discussion and their impact on meat consumption. Available at: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/269543.
-
Schulze-Ehlers, B. and N. Purwins. 2016. Does having a choice make a difference? Market potential of the animal welfare label in Germany. Proceedings in Food System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2016: 389-395.
'Does having a choice make a difference? Market potential of the animal welfare label in Germany ' () 2016 Proceedings in Food System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks : 389 -395.
-
Schulze-Ehlers, B., N. Steffen, G. Busch and A. Spiller. 2014. Supply chain orientation in SMEs as an attitudinal construct: conceptual considerations and empirical application to the dairy sector. Supply Chain Management 19(4): 395-412.
'Supply chain orientation in SMEs as an attitudinal construct: conceptual considerations and empirical application to the dairy sector ' () 19 Supply Chain Management : 395 -412.
-
Scientific Advisory Board on Agricultural Policy (WBA). 2015. Pathways to a socially accepted livestock husbandry in Germany. Executive Summary and Synthesis Report. WBA, Berlin, Germany.
-
Spooner, J.M., C.A. Schuppli and D. Fraser. 2014. Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27(4): 569-589.
'Attitudes of Canadian pig producers toward animal welfare ' () 27 Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics : 569 -589.
-
Te Velde, H., N. Aarts and C. Van Woerkum. 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(2): 203-219.
'Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding ' () 15 Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics : 203 -219.
-
Tepic, M., J.H. Trienekens, R. Hoste and S.W.F. Omta. 2012. The influence of networking and absorptive capacity on the innovativeness of farmers in the Dutch pork sector. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 15(3): 1-33.
'The influence of networking and absorptive capacity on the innovativeness of farmers in the Dutch pork sector ' () 15 International Food and Agribusiness Management Review : 1 -33.
-
Thorslund, C.A.H., M.D. Aaslyng and J. Lassen. 2017. Perceived importance and responsibility for market-driven pig welfare: literature review. Meat Science 125: 37-45.
'Perceived importance and responsibility for market-driven pig welfare: literature review ' () 125 Meat Science : 37 -45.
-
Thorslund, C.A.H., P. Sandøe, M.D. Aaslyng and J. Lassen. 2016. A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth – Animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries. Livestock Science 193: 58-65.
'A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth – Animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries ' () 193 Livestock Science : 58 -65.
-
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, S. Buijs and F.A.M. Tuyttens. 2009. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science 123(1): 16-22.
'Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production ' () 123 Livestock Science : 16 -22.
-
Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke and F.A.M Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116(1-3): 126-36.
'Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? ' () 116 Livestock Science : 126 -36.
-
Von Schomberg, R. 2010. Organising for collective responsibility: on precaution, codes of conduct and understanding public debate. In: Understanding Nanotechnology, edited by U. Fiedeler, C. Coenen, S.R. Davies, A. Ferrari. AKA, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 61-70.
'Organising for collective responsibility: on precaution, codes of conduct and understanding public debate ', in Understanding Nanotechnology , () 61 -70.
-
Von Schomberg, R. 2013. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innocation in society, edited by R. Owen, J. Bessant and M. Heintz. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK, pp. 51-74.
'A vision of responsible research and innovation ', in Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innocation in society , () 51 -74.
-
Weible, D., I. Christoph-Schulz, P. Salamon and K. Zander. 2016. Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: a mixed-method research approach. British Food Journal 118(8): 2014-2032.
'Citizens’ perception of modern pig production in Germany: a mixed-method research approach ' () 118 British Food Journal : 2014 -2032.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 205 | 133 | 7 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 130 | 78 | 8 |
Improving market success of animal welfare programs through key stakeholder involvement: heading towards responsible innovation?
In: International Food and Agribusiness Management ReviewSearch for other papers by Nina Purwins in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Senior Lecturer, Lincoln University, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Department of Global Value Chains and Trade, Lincoln 7647, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Search for other papers by Birgit Schulze-Ehlers in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Despite frequent public criticism of modern husbandry practices, many animal welfare programs lack acceptance among both farmers and consumers. We contend that this lock-in originates from a lack of market orientation and consequential neglect of key stakeholders’ preferences in program design. Considering the case of a retailer-owned meat brand, we demonstrate the relevance of stakeholders’ inclusion when establishing animal welfare programs for pigs. Surveys among 62 farming members of a pig trading cooperative and 692 supermarket customers reveal the heterogeneity of beliefs and acceptance within both groups. While a Responsible Innovation approach, including key actors from the initial criteria selection, could be effective for raising acceptance, it would likely lead to lengthy time-to-market, prohibiting first-mover advantages. We suggest instead that beliefs and acceptance among farmers may be influenced through a communication strategy based on survey results and experimental research, as well as facilitating positive word-of-mouth.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Full Text Views | 205 | 133 | 7 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 130 | 78 | 8 |
